Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 124 of total 124 in this topic |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 14, 2005 - 03:24am PT
|
The historical progression of the most difficult free climbing grades saw a very large jump from 1960 to 1970, using modern ratings going from something like 5.9 to 5.11a. However, from 1970 to 1990 the grades only went to 5.13c for this 20 year period. This trend shows that the high end free climbing ratings top out at around 5.14a/b around now (2005).
This would be for all climbs in the Valley.
Is there a limit to the free climbing difficulty, a maximum possible rating? What sets the limit?
Will the Valley see route projects in the 5.15 and 5.16 range? what projects? what are these climbs like?
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2005 - 10:14am PT
|
This sounds a bit like asking, "Will computers get faster?"
|
|
Edge
Trad climber
New Durham, NH
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2005 - 11:14am PT
|
I've raced mine three times, but it justs sit's there on the desk.
|
|
euphoria
Trad climber
Slippery Rock, PA
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2005 - 01:50pm PT
|
Then you have to ask yourself which is more difficult, numbers aside:
Hill or the Hubers or any other El Cap free aces doing that voodoo that they do, or someone doing a 50-100' 5.15.
It seems to me that Valley climbs will always have the length working for them, which could, if it could be properly quantified, put them up there with the hardest sport climbs.
|
|
MikeA
climber
Farmington, Utah
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2005 - 04:18pm PT
|
The hardest climbing to be done in Yosemite is on the boulders, and I don't see any reason why yosemite bouldering can't or won't keep up with international standards.
As for routes, I would be a fool to say that 5.15 will never be climbed in Yosemite, so let's just say conditions in yosemite do not lend themselves to having the hardest sport routes in the world.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 14, 2005 - 05:10pm PT
|
F'ueco - there are physical limits to how fast computers can go, Moore's law cannot continue forever. The principal drive is feature size, and at some point you hit the quantum limit (a single electron). You can't drop below that limit, so something radical must happen, but is is beyond the current increase.
I am interested in discussing what the "physical limits" of climbing in Yosemite (and more widely) are. My contention is that there is a maximum limit thus a maximum rating, but it might be so high to be essentially unbounded. Progress in the Valley on pushing route difficulty has slowed down, why?
Euph - I didn't want to get into a discussion of route length or climbing style (rad, trad, etc). My experience is that lots of hard stuff gets done on boulders, then someone does a half pitch, then a link up to a full pitch, then has an idea of pushing an old route free, then a variation of an old route, then a new route.
So my feeling is that if it is possible to climb at a particular rating, it will be done, and eventually for long routes. The question here is what defines "the possible".
MikeA - I addressed the bouldering issue in the response to Euph... I may be a fool, but perhaps a fool with an idea - that climbing has a maximum difficulty limit which can not be exceeded. It is possible that what is left in Yosemite to develop is too hard to do. OK, I think we can all see 5.15, which is somewhere in the V15 range. Higher though?
My point is that perhaps there is a limit to the hardest climbs that you could do in an area. What sets the limit?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 01:18am PT
|
What sets the limit?
Consciousness
If you want to develop the consciousness of a lizard then you can be one in your next life and climb un-roped free solo 5 dot unlimited numbers.
Ha,ha .... You knew, I just couldn't resist ........
|
|
Don't let go
Trad climber
Yorba Linda, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 02:55am PT
|
When I first started climbing, I had the difficulty of a 5.14d+ described to me as a horizontal glass wall. Since only spider man can climb that I always thought that was the limit. I wonder how much it just is people saying how awsome they are and want to say they have surpassed all of the great climbers that have gone before us.
|
|
jclimb
Trad climber
Durango, Co
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 01:05pm PT
|
well, we know that 14d or 15a or whatever is the current upper level of climbing is not a vertical glass wall. there has to be something to somehow hold onto in some way whether it's a crimp, open hand, smear, crack of whatever width, or nuance of some sort. i also do not think that 15a is the upper limit. however, i do think that there is some point at which humans are not physically possible to cling to whatever media the rock has to offer, regardless of tendon strength, finger/hand size (ever stuck your pinky in an open bolt hole in the gym?), height, mental ability, etc. it seems that the idea of climbing a vertical pane of glass is a pretty good point of reference. transfer the qualities of a pane of glass that make it impossible to climb to a rock wall, and you have impassibility. make it overhung and then even more so. there just has to be some thing to cling to; a place that the climber is able to manipulate in some fashion to resist gravity. i think that is the limiting factor. at some point, we are just not able to cling to the rock. i suppose that technology could play a role - stickier rubber, rubber finger condoms, finger extensions that fit into minute cracks like a rurp or other thin blade. but, stuff like that aside, just climbing with sticky rubber shoes and chalk, there is a definite limit.
i don't know what the upper limit of climbing in yosemite would me on a number scale, though. there definitely has to be one, though. our climbing abilities, and thus the rating scale, is not infinite.
j
|
|
James
Gym climber
City by the Bay
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 02:57pm PT
|
The cieling for climbing has barely begun to be touched. As the sport gains in popularity the gene pool for an elite level of climbing will develop as well as more advanced training technigues. A look at the most elite climbers in the world show they do little training, compared to other athletes. Currently there are a number of climbers who are able to perform at elite levels not because they are talented but merely because of their level of commitment. As climbing progresses the climbers who have worked their way to fame through tenacity and commitment will end an an emergence of geneticallyh gifted climbers will become the sole inheritants of the most elite climbing. We are however at the cusp of this phenomenon. With genetic mutants such as Chris Sharma and a number of other young guns the scene for those of us who have less talent are screwed.
Keep trying and maintain ignorance-it's blissful. Maybe a free el cap will go down for you.
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 04:31pm PT
|
F'ueco - there are physical limits to how fast computers can go, Moore's law cannot continue forever. The principal drive is feature size, and at some point you hit the quantum limit (a single electron). You can't drop below that limit, so something radical must happen, but is is beyond the current increase.
I am interested in discussing what the "physical limits" of climbing in Yosemite (and more widely) are. My contention is that there is a maximum limit thus a maximum rating, but it might be so high to be essentially unbounded. Progress in the Valley on pushing route difficulty has slowed down, why?
Computers have a long way to go before they catch up with the physical limits of the components. I think that there will be 1 TB iPods within the next decade, and internet access will become, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous. Computers will continue to get smaller and faster, until what today's supercomputers can do will fit into a PDA (and continue past that). Nanotechnology is just beginning to become a reality.
There are physical limits in how far people can push themselves in any sport. Are we close to reaching them? Who knows.
In climbing terms, it seems that the higher the upper gets, the softer the ratings become (especially in the upper middle of the range (5.11-12, currently). So to say that we are limited to climbing 5.16 is short-sighted, since what we now are calling 5.13 may be called 5.15 in a few decades.
The Valley itself has the limiting factor that the aren't that many holds between the cracks. Also, there are not many featured overhangs in the Valley. You can only climb slabs with no holds up to a certain angle. Past that, the friction of the shoe rubber must give out. There is also only so small of a hold that the human hand can hold before the friction is just not there. Where that limit is depends on the weight the hold must carry (which is why the top climbers are generally so small, and why Cicada Jenerik is a glimpse at the future of top-end climbers).
|
|
Jay
Trad climber
Fort Mill, SC
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 06:43pm PT
|
Whatever the limit may be we’ll need one of those super wristwatch computers to gather enough data to figure it out. Many data points of mental and physical attributes would have to be crunched into some complex array of statistical algorithms. Regardless of the results I only dream of being able to climb half as well as my dog can run.
A thought about workout regiments... if many of the top climbers don't prescribe to the acceptable training techniques that the rest of us call "dedicated" then maybe there's something wrong with our perception of what elite training really is. The only way to measure the effectiveness of a training regiment is by results. The results are out. Two of the strongest climbers who ever lived (Gullich and Sharma) fall on 2 different sides of the training discipline. One worked his way to the top by traditional means, training very hard and loving every minute of it; the same way the rest of us mortals approach it. The other seemingly touched a rock, a dove descended down from heaven and blessed him with the spirit of climbing. Who more adequately represents our human potential?
Now there are two other athletes we can talk about; Ruth and Bonds. One was blessed with skill beyond measure; his training regiment consisted of living a hard and fast. He was an orphan and had very little else going for him, but he sure could play ball! The other was born into professional baseball; molded as a supreme athlete from day one. He may very well be the most honed slugger in history. Who more adequately represents our human potential?
I don’t know, and I don’t think we will ever know, but it’s a great question to think about. We all agree on one thing though, normal people must workout to climb hard stuff. I wish you good results and safe passage.
|
|
Shack
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2005 - 07:23pm PT
|
Numbers aside....
In theory one could always find a climb that is just a little teeny tiny bit harder if not limited by naturally occurring
lines.
So if the current free climbing god capable of climbing the currently hardest route in existence, could probably climb the same climb if it were just a little teeny tiny bit harder.
5.13 seemed impossible 20 years ago!
It may only take some lizard/human gene splicing!
|
|
Mungeclimber
Social climber
N. California
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005 - 12:55am PT
|
I ask; how hard is 5.13 at Suicide Rock in So Cal? When did that go up?
Isn't the upper end of the scale just a series of 5.13 moves?
Is there such a thing as a one move or even two move 5.14? I don't think so.
My hypothesis is that current 5.13 is just relabelled 5.12s of years ago, and the upward float of grades as a by-product of gym climbing by relative novices since the 80s that don't have the experience of years of exposure to traditional 5.2s and 5.3s at Tahquitz don't understand what it means to climb 5.9, or even 5.10.
Consequently the same applies to 5.14. 5.14 is really just a series of lower grade moves, and doesn't represent a separate grade unto itself. The scale is open ended to accomadate advances and a younger generation of Sharma elites, but most of the new elites never tried climbing out of that pod of that classic 10c on the Cookie Cliff. Keep in mind Sharma doesn't grade his stuff these days and the hype around 5.15 is really a commercial hype and hyperbole that keeps us glued to our information sources. Our infotainment, if you will.
For those that have climbed 5.14 can you say that from your experience the hardest climbs you have done are tangibly different than the hardest 5.12s of years prior? And yes, I think bouldering ratings and cracks and sport climbs are comparable on 3 fronts.
Technicality
Power
Endurance
TPE rating scale (C) MungeClimber Enterprises 2002
Please post up describing how a hard climb you did is tangibly harder than 5.12s of yesteryear.
Thanks,
MungeGadFlyClimber
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005 - 01:14am PT
|
I remember when Kauk told me a long time ago before all this hard grade stuff. He had this vision then. He said it will be many boulder moves put together to make a hard climb that we see today. We put some labels and numbers to them to give some idea to their effort.
The spirit in it’s ascension becomes some rating. If your spirit can become light enough you will be able to float.
The spirit is not bound by gravity.
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005 - 01:19am PT
|
Right on, Mungie.
That's why we need to go back to the B scale for bouldering.
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2005 - 01:26am PT
|
And there are definitely single moves on boulder problems that are harder than 5.13. Doing moves on lead is a whole new game, though.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 16, 2005 - 03:20am PT
|
My initial post discussed grades because they are the most universal way we talk about the difficulties. A whole other thread could be created to discuss the imperfections of the grading system. Ratings change with time, just look at all the 5.9's in the Valley and try to sort through that mess. Compare some of Mac's SuperTopo ratings against the historic ratings... controvery there for sure! in the other direction. Eventually the climbs get done by enough people who have climbed a lot of other climbs and comparisons can be made.. it's just that not many people climb at the elite grades, it takes time to sort out the ratings... the difficulties are known soon enough.
As for training, I think James has a point that future climbers may be able to take advantage of improved training technique... the big jump from the 60's to the 70's was due, at least in part, to a concerted effort to "train" for climbing, though perhaps not as an olympic athelete. But there are climbers throughout the history of climbing that have trained and have accomplished difficult climbs, John Gill stands out as an early proponent of training for climbs, a number of climbers, Gullich was one, also trained for specific climbs. However, there are physical limits for any sport beyond which the body cannot be pushed. So there are limitations, I might agree with James that we don't actually know the boundaries there.
The development of technique, and the practice of that technique is also important. In some sense this area has the most potential for advance, bouldering is the engine of invention, along with hand-dogging, rehersing, etc... working routes in general. As climbers learn to do things in well controlled environments they can take those things on high. Kauk has pursued this direction for some time, as have others.
Werner is of course correct, much of the perceived limits are a product of the mind. Being able to break through and "see" what could be possible, and unlocking the secret of a climb is one of the very big limitation.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, even a duffer like myself can benefit by thinking about ultimate limits... I have my own personal ones and it's always nice to figure out how to push them out just a bit further.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Social climber
N. California
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2005 - 01:50am PT
|
I think we need an open ended scale for longer an longer routes, of hard moves stacked on hard moves. I've never seen a full 70 meter pitch that is as sustained as the crux moves of Too Be or Not to be. When that day comes we may have come really close to human endurance. But power and technicality have been done.
Fueco, can you name some examples that have single moves harder than 5.13? And by 5.13 I mean compared to something old, otherwise the 5.13 is just lots of 12 moves and might be seen as part of the upward float of grades.
Ed stated something interesting; that grades change over time. But maybe they should not. Once a grade has been established, then that becomes the measuring stick of sorts, or at least a series of routes at the grade.
Someone that has the patience and logical capacity can argue my hypothesis and this recent proposition into a linguistic corner, but how is that we can still talk about grades. I can still relate generally how hard something is?
Are there any treatises on the climbing rating systems? What a wonderful book that would be to write. filled with paradoxes and parables.
JL? Put those creative juices to work. A comprehensive insiders guide to ratings of the TDS.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2005 - 01:57am PT
|
But what is the end point? Harder, harder and still harder. Then what? You still have to die. I thought the end point was to transcend Birth and death?
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2005 - 10:39am PT
|
It's a bit hard compare the moves to an old-school 5.13 when you haven't done any of them. Besides, what is old school?
Do I have to go as far back as The Phoenix or Grand Illusion? How about that 5.13 crack on The Muffins at Castle Rock?
The single hardest move that I have pulled on a boulder problem is the crux of Blue Suede Shoes. That (as far as I know) is an old school 5.12- slab. Now it's V5. So what changed? The problem or did the rating scale shift?
Another question is: how do you correlate the difficulty of a slab against the difficulty of an overhang? Crack vs. Face? They really can't be directly compared due to the differing techniques.
|
|
handsome B
Gym climber
Saskatoon, Saskatchawan
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2005 - 10:59am PT
|
Well here are some things to think about. . .
"Dreamtime" in Switzerland is (was, now that it has been chipped) V15. It is a granite problem consisting of some big moves between rails, then a traverse and mantle over the lip. The total height is about 15 feet off the ground with about 20 feet of climbing packed into that. So if V15 moves could be extended to a 70 meter pitch (or pitches) it would be such a gigantic leap in grades as to be unimaginable.
I think this could be done, while there could be a limit as to what human hands could hold, i think there is no limit as to the endurance of the human body/mind.
Think of a 28 pitch El Cap free route with no move easier than V15; we have a long way to go.
|
|
F'ueco
Boulder climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2005 - 04:18pm PT
|
But you still face the problem that you can't compare the dynamic lunges between holds to a crack. Because of that, you still can't correlate the difficulty of climbs like Dreamtime to the old routes.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 01:14pm PT
|
5.16?
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 01:39pm PT
|
I wonder if the push to harder and harder grading numbers has been the ulitmate limit climbers place on themselves. It seems the push the harder and harder numbers has caused a large number of climbers to persue hard technical moves at the loss of the ability to persue difficult mental climbs, i.e. those requiring boldness.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 02:24pm PT
|
By the early 70’s I had decided the whole topic of climb grading was a dead end. Why?
Ed has brought up all the new techniques, hang dogging, preplaced protection, permanent draws, the list goes on forever. What is really being increased? What are we really doing? We take a climb that appears to be hard and then apply whatever stratagems are needed to make it less hard(easier). I was accused of cheating in the late sixties because I did not wear a pack when climbing. And yes I did use those new pitons which made everything easier, at least till we all saw that was going nowhere.
Is it that we are increasing the disparity between the actual difficulty and the apparent difficulty? The importance of this disparity becomes undeniable when someone comes along and wanders up something that was another person’s “project”. In 1969 when I got up something that took 12 days of effort I personally decided the whole thing was silly self-delusion.
If you really want to talk actual difficulty, forget about all the tricks and even forget about “working” on that fascinating line. Don’t even touch it till you have gone off, conditioned, and developed all the needed techniques. When you decide to take your “one go” at the route follow your personal rules for climbing implicitly. If your rules limit you to carrying four stoppers that’s all you can bloody well take.
Don’t get me wrong. People are getting better. But face it folks. The numbers don’t mean a thing. Not really.
To finally be free you have to realize climbing does not mean anything. Somebody going from here to there for the first time? This event will reverberate through history? C’mon. Risking your life? Means something only to the people you happen to care about, and bye the bye affects them adversely.
You have a start on meaning when at the end of the day you feel good. Since no one else knows how you feel that achievement starts and ends inside you. Unless you draw strength from it and determine to go out and find an answer to fixing social security. Now that is really friggin hard!
I have to put this video in. Life is never what you think it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO3tscCAVJ8
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 04:34pm PT
|
jstan,
With very great trepidation, I must disagree with your conclusion on the meaninglessness of numbers. If by "meaningless" you mean the word the Preacher uses in Ecclesiastes, I agree. But if we stay physical rather than metaphysical, at least some numbers mean something to me.
The Tahquitz climbers originally subdivided class-5 because merely calling a climb fifth class gave too little information. A new leader could do the Trough or Angel's Fright, but not Open Book, all of which had a class-5 rating. Thus, the decimal system was shorthand for a climb's comparative difficulty. A 5.0 had difficulty comparable to the Trough, 5.9 to Open Book, and the others somewhere in between. There was never an idea that each subdivision had any mathematical relationship to the last. It simply represented what people then considered the next useful quantum of difficulty. That way, one could use the information from the ratings to select appropriate climbs.
As long as we understand ratings in that context, they have great meaning. I think we lose the meanings with the highest grades, however, because too few people have done them to form a consensus of their difficulty. I find many climbs, but especially difficult ones, have difficulty that depends on personal idiosyncracies. I am short, so I have certain advantages on some climbs, and disadvantages on others. I may find a climb quite difficult that you find easy, simply because I can't make a critical reach, or I may find a move straightforward that you find awkward because I don't need to contort as much as you. In that instance, the ratings may not really give enough information.
The problem, of course, is that we are competitive beings, and began using ratings as a means of keeping score. I happen to think ratings work as a crude score-keeping device, but need some refinement because of the idiosyncratic effect set forth above. In the end, all is vanity (i.e. meaningless) unless we climb in a way that satisfies us, but I know many people -- often including me -- who feel satisfaction in climbing something with an impressive number.
Now as for Ed's question . . . I think climbing is much closer to, say, swimming or distance running circa 1960 than, say sprinting. If you compare the swimming records of 1960 to, say typical times in a good college swim meet, you see how far we've come. If you compare marks in the long jump or 100 meters, however, you see far less progress, suggesting we're much closer to our limits there.
Climbing remains a relatively exotic sport. I believe that as our gene pool expands, athletes will emerge with skill and imagination to do things we can't dream of. If those who do a particular climb agree that it is more difficult than a current 5.15, it becomes a 5.16. We err when we define 5.anything as the impossible. That forces us to compress a rating system designed to measure steps in difficulty when something now impossible for us becomes possible for us or others.
John
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 04:49pm PT
|
sorry to jump in here, but score keeping IS metaphysical, or merely a linguistic problem.
how would it not be? I'm not sure that it is a problem to the real point you are making, but you start out with a distinction between the physical and metaphysical.
maybe I'm just confused.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 04:52pm PT
|
I don't see how you can compare swimming to other sports, especially those that are either how fast can you go, or how much weight can you move. With those competitive sports you are ultimately pushed by how much faster you have to be than your competition. It is rare that a competitor in a given generation will blow the doors off of others. Over time techniques improve as well as training and hence times continue to drop.
With climbing, it is ultimately the climber against the rock. The line is what motivates and pushes the climber. Sure there are some that climb just for the numbers, but most of us desire to climb a paticular line, and train as needed to gain the skills to ascend the line.
With the first 5.13's having been climbed in the late 70's, early 90's, and the 5.14 grade coming in the early 90's, it's taken nearly 20 years to get to 5.15. And, as the grades are truly subjective, is the difference in difficulty between a 5.13a and 5.14a the same as the difference between 5.14a and 5.15a?
Unless there is a quantum increase in technology, aka shoes, I don't see there being quantum leaps in the difficulty of climbs.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 04:58pm PT
|
You're right, mungeclimber. I was thinking of "meaningless" in the sense used by the writer of Ecclesiastes (i.e. ultimately vain), rather than its more customary usage (i.e. not conveying any additional information). Neither is physical, but when I think of a rating, I think of specific climbs, which, of course, are physical. Hence the source of my error. Thanks for the correction.
As for my use of "quantum" -- I simply mean a perceptible difference, as in a step function, rather than a continuous one.
John
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 05:02pm PT
|
JE:
I don't know that I would let trepidation get the better of me.
I agree subdivisions of grade five are helpful at levels where it is statistically well founded. And you are correct long arms, either small fingers or strong fingers can make a huge difference.
I was applying the phrase "no meaning" to the question Ed asked. How many more grades can we go? My point was that all manner of things are changing. As I pointed out they were changing in the past just as they are changing now. When we try to do a climb several times, even WE are changing. Seen locally at the point of "the next grade" there really is not a lot of substance at which one may point.
Not surprisingly, I liked the way I looked at it. This weekend if I could do something I could not do the previous weekend, then I was learning. This sounds as though it is not applicable to ED's question but is it? Why do we like larger numbers?
Because they convince us we are learning.
Using numbers to convince us of this in climbing is like standing in a bog of quicksand.
Much better to be convinced while hanging on to a piece of rock which no one has changed so that they might get up it.
I think there is no doubt as to the answer to Ed's question.
The numbers will continue without end.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 05:08pm PT
|
There are no limits. Only limitations.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 05:09pm PT
|
Thanks, John. I see that I misunderstood what you said before, and that, in fact, we agree.
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 05:24pm PT
|
Aside from figuring out what climbs are good to keep on the radar screen, I think ratings serve to measure our own growth or progress. Some group of people will always feel a need for continued growth or progress, and so will need a rating system that grows in some fashion to mark that progress. The distinctions between grades may get smaller and smaller over time as we asymptotically approach some theoretical limit. So you might say the the subjective rating of a climb will be a logarithmic function of the objective difficulty if you could measure crimp-strength, normal force, or some other externally quantifiable means of assessing difficulty.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 05:37pm PT
|
In one sense, the limits were reached in the 1970s or 1980s. The hardest climbs being led on sight then, with gear being placed as the climber ascended, were perhaps hard 5.12 by current grades. The limit for such climbs now may be 5.13 - few if any lead free routes with a harder grade, placing gear, without hanging/resting/falling/inspecting/extensive beta. The exceptions seem mostly to be quite short climbs.
|
|
pip the dog
Mountain climber
planet dogboy
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 06:56pm PT
|
Thanks for resurrecting this thread. A joy to read (especially when I am being paid and should be actually working).
~~~
To my small mind, the hardest FFAs of the late 70’s and early 80’s were every bit as hard as the hardest stuff being done today. I can quick think of 30 examples, but as bluering (rightly) warned me, too many words are, well, simply too many words.
Think of the FFA of The Prow (NH) or The Naked Edge -– or whatever routes from those days that you have checked out, personally (these are just quick examples from my personal geography). Imagine being the first up on the sharp end, just then, with hard rubber, lame pro, and zero beta.
With super-sticky rubber, pre-placed bolts "From Above", weeks or months of hang-dogging well, sure, the numbers will certainly rise. And a lot. But does the _just_then_ difficulty for the very best at the sharp end also rise? I think not.
But (importantly) -- nor does it fall. The best of the best did remarkable stuff BITD; and the best of the best today still do remarkable stuff. Equally outstanding, only different, given the changes in gear and technique over time. In either case, way more than I can do, or could ever do (though perhaps with the next generation of sticky rubber and quicker reliable gear will come a miracle... all of those who breath also dream.)
A couple years ago I accidentally topped out on a V12 no more than 15 feet high (after 40+ tries - just once, couldn't repeat it for the life of me). Does that make me a 5.14 climber? Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa! And, um, now almost decades (wow...) ago I finally freed The Prow (NH), with sticky rubber, far better spring-loaded pro, and all manner of tries and beta. Does that make me as good as Jimmy Dunn? Bwaaahaaahaaahaaa! Ack! Sheeesh...
Each generation has it’s gifted and driven ones. And what they pull off is equally massive. Numbers miss the point.
Or so says your small dog,
^,,^
|
|
Peter Haan
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 07:29pm PT
|
Fun thought experiment.
Maybe we should just look at other sports---ones that have been heavily competed for more than a hundred years or so with tons of record keeping. Such as swimming, various field and track events. There appears to be an asymptotic nature to the improvements: as time goes on, the improvements are tinier and tinier, closing in on what might appear to be a “limit”---what Ed is wondering about. Sometimes there are even WORSE times or heights recorded, implying that the limit was reached earlier! Horse racing looks like this sometimes.
But because our equipment and our game rules change, (as well as time passing) it might be harder to grasp what the limit would actually be more or less---the entire frame being moved.
There is real folly in predicting a limit, however. 39 years ago, Galen asserted to me that climbing had not gotten harder, ratings were getting easier---climbing was at hardest, 5.10 and that was that! Vandiver and I laughed at his face. He was absolutely adamant about this ridiculous belief. He did live long enough to see that he was incredibly wrong on this although I doubt he acknowledged it. But I will say it DID seem that we were reaching “a limit”---stuff was getting so marginal, although way harder than 5.10.
But it will seem this way always. Whether or not you improve equipment, fuss with the rules and train even better than previous generations. That nauseating feeling that “we don’t have anything new to bring to this”. In other words, what I don’t like is the idea that we are at our limit today----that is not the case and I don’t see anybody saying this here of course. That would be incredibly discouraging and an outrageous insult to our up and coming climbers, hungering for the near-impossible.
At first blush physics might seem to want to lead us to a belief there are real limits. But “limits” to what? The what is changing as well, you know. It is a given that current rubber has its particular coefficients, fingers range from .375 to 1.125” thick more or less (guessing), body/weight ratios seem to top out at Sharma-like, Fred Nicole-like guys. But the climbing activity requires more than: high strength/weight ratios, superb rubber and shoes, ingenious hardware. It requires above all else, tremendously powerful mental abilities that very much are still emerging, as Werner intimates.
We also have on the horizon, a very game-changing material that Peter Mayfield pointed out about 1.5 years ago, a kind of gecko-like molecular attraction stuff that sticks to anything, just like geckos and others use to climb glass and stuff. And material scientists are working on this stuff too....it was all over the news back then.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 07:42pm PT
|
Peter,
That reminds me of a cartoon in either climbing or rock and ice from the late 80's or early 90's. The cartoon caracter was wearting a goo suit, that allowed him to climb anywhere.
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 07:42pm PT
|
I'm LIMITED to "easier" climbs in the Valley. I'm limited by the following (among other things):
talent
cowardice
health
time
So, for me, I'll typically climb in the 5.10 and under range unless the above LIMITATIONS change for some reason.
I could really care less about 5.12 since I don't climb at that level. When I see someone climb at that grade I'm impressed and amused.... like when you go watch Cirque Du Soliel and see acrobats do amazing feats.
So while it makes the climbing magazines when someone climbs 5.15, I'm not really all that moved. I'd much rather read an article about some guy (who has a job) climbing a 5.9 onsite and describing his experience doing so. Because that experience is closer to something that I can relate to.
Since Yosemite is not a sport area the "Limits to Free Climbing" involve so much more that just a number. The cool thing is that for every person that climbs in the Valley there are many ways to find one's own limits. And some really great stories are created when folks "reach their limits".
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 08:12pm PT
|
I'd have to agree with JStan, at least in part, because "Hard" has to be defined, and numbers don't account for how hard something is always.
For instance... Realization at 5.15a has more repeats than Southern Belle. If we consider that the climbing skill is comprised not just of Strength and Technique, but we add a third element of boldness, this triangle gives us a broader definition.
So then "hard" can be easier defined as "harder to repeat." When you see on climbing blogs the listed ascents, you will no doubt see top end sport climbs listed alongside breaking news of a 5.13 free bigwall. Which is harder, then? Well... that's where the fun comes in :D
This also gives room to the guy doing a barefoot onsight freesolo of a 5.12 having some weight, as well as the climbs of our forefathers/foremothers.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 08:57pm PT
|
I allowed as how people are getting better. There are many reasons, one of which is the following. As climbing gets wider visibility (something I regret) you begin to involve a larger portion of the gene pool.
So what? Some years ago one of Phelps' competitors remarked, "Nice flippers!" when he came into the pool area. You begin to draw on a larger pool of people and you begin to pull in more of those who have inherent advantages.
Go ahead. Tell me Lance Armstrong is not a genetic freak.
As this process goes on and on any one individual has to ask what it is that is really important. Are you the best in the world? Or do you simply find the activity wonderfully rewarding?
Really easy question to answer.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 09:05pm PT
|
No doubt about Phelps and Armstrong being genetic freaks... phelps looks like a g-dang tiger shark.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 09:26pm PT
|
Stannard's point should be obvious and goes back to the discussions of the 80s, when sport climbing came of age. Certainly the grade numbers increased with the advent of sport techniques, but that was only because harder grades became easier--it was the dumbing down of climbing. Advances in difficulty would certainly have happened anyway, but in no way would the progression been so rapid and the higher grades would not have become available to such a large pool of climbers.
As far as the difficulty of individual climbing moves goes, I doubt much advancement (if any) has occurred over the last 30 years. Single moves done by Jim Holloway on his unrepeated boulder problems of the 70s are still, well, unrepeated. The best support that I can think of for this opinion is that most modern boulder problems at the upper end of the "V" scale today are quite long, endurance related routes.
Curt
|
|
Porkchop_express
Trad climber
the base of the Shawangunk Ridge
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 10:06pm PT
|
The whole rating thing always rings somewhat hollow for me after being on 5.10s out west that were tough but doable and being on 5.8s in the Gunks that made me so frustrated that I almost questioned why I bothered climbing in the first place.
As far as the super high end stuff, I have never come close to that so I can't say. But I do think that if the 5.14s of today were boiled down to the grades at "traditional/sandbagged" areas there would be a lot lower "ceiling" so to speak.
I kind of like the B grading system because it takes into account the inherent subjectivity of ratings. A more effective scale would be one that had a set bottom and top, with more downrating to reflect consensus and advances. Otherwise the top end of the spectrum is something that even in theory is inaccessible to all but the elite athletes.
In track, you can be a three hundred pound couch potato and still recognize the world record for the 100m. The measurement is something that is universal.
Now i'm confused but it all sort of made sense to me at the time.
One last thing before i shut up, i really think that boldness ought to factor into the ratings. I like the point GDavis raised about southern belle. Makes sense to me.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2009 - 10:51pm PT
|
The math talent is out of the house just now, but Ed will be able to tell me if it makes sense to ask; Can you have an upper bound with no least upper bound? I thought I saw language upthread to that effect. There could be an endless progression of harder and harder climbs which never got harder than some limit.
A pretty theoretical issue.
I last got into such a discussion when a contributor to Sqaumishclimbing.com called grades purely subjective.
I argued that grades can have objective reality and gave examples.
Grades have all kinds of problems but there is a kernel of truth in them.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 27, 2009 - 01:36am PT
|
There are two different discussions going on here. One relates to how we quantify the difficulty of a climb. I think that is interesting but it was not my main point. I used the ratings as a point of reference because, whatever the system of rating, some climbs are harder than others. I don't think there is any debate about that.
The other discussion is the one I think I was wondering about five years ago, that is, are there limits to what can actually be accomplished in climbing. This is always a terribly polarizing question, there are those who say there are limits, and there are those who say it is limitless. Because we are asking about something in the absolute future no one can be right.
Limits are something no one likes to think about. But there is another way to pursue this line of questioning which James suggested. Let me twist his argument around a bit. What I could have asked was this:
How much training can you tolerate?
Training is very hard on your body, you challenge the various pieces and then you rest to recruit tissue growth and regeneration. Done properly, this builds your capabilities for a particular sport. I think training techniques are not unknown to climbers. How well you can tolerate training has to do with the type of body you have as well as your motivation and other important factors like nutrition and getting rest.
Having a great body means a body that is suited to the physical insults of climbing. There is a large variation among climbers. Lately I've been training on offwidth, and my body's physical limitations determine how much I can train, and set my progress. Right now I've been down for a week and a half with an inflamed lumbar disk. That means little training of any type, until the disk gets right. In general terms I am loosing conditioning, not just for offwidth but for all climbing.
When I'm well I find that if I don't get a proper amount of rest that I will also "loose ground" in my training. Usually when I'm working out I need at least 7.5 hours of sleep, training hard means at least 8 hours. My usual non-training mode is 5-6 hours. My habits for working are to do it late at night, but my job has me at some time in the morning. What happens is I work out and then get little rest. This is a loosing proposition.
Finally, while I don't have a problem getting food, there are climbers who don't have the means to acquire sufficient nutrition to get a training benefit. You can't workout and not eat, at least not for very long. Your body "eats itself" and basically reduces caloric need, countering any training benefit.
I could blame all this on my mental attitude and commitment to climbing. It represents an avocation in my life, not a vocation, and takes on a secondary importance.
Now this is pretty much true for all climbers, actually probably all athletes. At some point you reach a limit to what you can tolerate in training. It could be that you break your body in some significant manner. You might not be able to arrange enough training time to survive. You might get bored. You might loose interest.
These are real limits, basically sampling the human population that is available to climb.
Maybe James is correct and we haven't seen the truly talented athletes take up climbing. If climbers could get a $10 million/year contract to climb perhaps that would motivate a real advance in the sport, breakthroughs in technique and equipment and training.
But there is not just a motivation aspect, but the very real physical aspect, the physical limitations of the human in the environment.
Limits?
The last hitter to hit a season average above .400 was Ted Williams in 1941. There are only 35 hitters in the history of baseball who have. There is an obvious motivation to be the best hitter you can be.... there's a lot of money in it. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs, his last in 1929, Hank Aaron hit his 755th in 1968 and Barry Bonds his 762nd in 2001. Ruth was obviously talented and lucky to live when he did. But there is little doubt that there are real limits here. Will anyone ever hit 800 or 900 or 1000 home runs? Will anyone every hit for a season average .500?
My attempts to look at the possible limits for climbing has been posted before. Let's say that there is some distribution of the ability to climb at the harder grades. The number of people who are limited to climb at the very lowest grades is small, as is the number of people who can climb at the vary harder grades. Somewhere in the middle are the largest number of people. I'm going to assume that this describes everyone.
So if I pick a person at random, most likely I'm going to pick someone in the middle and less likely to pick someone at either end of the scale. So at the beginning of the sport you pick the easy lines up the cliffs, almost everyone can do these. As you pick more difficult lines, fewer and fewer people can do them. Finally, as you pick the very hardest lines, only a relatively few people could actually climb these.
So the rate of increase of difficulty starts out very high, but eventually the rate of increase of difficulty starts to decrease, there just aren't the people around to do the climbs, for what ever reason. That is the classic "logistics curve" which looks exponential at the early times of easy route development, but starts to limit at the hardest grades.
I did one for Yosemite Valley because it has some many routes over so many years that you can actually do the analysis. Here it is:
Now if you look at "2009" on the vertical axis and follow it across you get to something like 5.16b/c around now for the "yellow" curve. If there were no limits, we'd expect climbs greater than 5.17c would have been done 10 years ago.
The limit seems to be around 5.17d by this analysis and this would be reached around 2040 or 2050.
So that is my prediction, I put it on the table. I'd be willing to make a wager for an appropriate celebratory prize that I'm right.
I might even live that long.
But I'm not saying you couldn't climb harder. I'm just saying you (or anyone else) couldn't sustain the physical and mental effort to push beyond that.
How could I be wrong? well the rate of population growth is increasing the number of people, which means that there might be more of those way-out-on-the-tails type people. On the other hand, baseball hasn't seen this effect even though the number of people available to play baseball now is much larger than say when the Babe played. So the limits seem real. We are cursed with our physical form.
ANYONE WANT TO TAKE THE BET?
What's the ante?
You have to come up with an analysis of your own prediction that can be tested against the yearly "hardest rating" in climbing. Talk is cheap... let's see the reasoning.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2009 - 02:40am PT
|
Ed,
My main disagreement with you concerns our limits to measure absolute, rather than relative difficulty. The YDS was, originally, an ordering system, not strictly a measuring one. Put slightly differently, most of us find one climb more or less difficult than another (in other words, we can order their difficulty), but we have much greater difficulty measuring that difference. Is the left side of Moby Dick 1 time, 10 times, 100 times harder than Church Bowl Chimney? I don't think we have any way to measure that.
This problem particularly shows in the arbitrariness of subdivisions of YDS classifications. Your graph would have predictive power only if there were some relationship between grades that could be defined in some sort of linear transformation. Your graph assumes such a relationship, but I know of no measurement that fits.
The reason I used swimming and track and field examples in my earlier post was that we have well-defined measurements for achievement in these sports. Even though no one has done a 9.50 hundred meters, we know what it would be. What is 5.16 or 5.17? All we know for sure is that it's harder than 5.15. If you tell me free climbing's limit is 5.16, I have no idea where, in real life, that limit lies, because I have no climb against which to measure 5.16.
You've started a great discussion, and I see all sorts of interesting mathematical and measuring issues. Unfortuantely, I don't see their resolution yet. Thanks for a good start, though.
John
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 27, 2009 - 02:52am PT
|
The way I see it, my limit analysis is on track to predicting the limit... based on the assumptions that you think are incorrect. So I could be lucky, or I could be right.
I'd say that we do have a good idea of what those climbs would be, and that the grading system is a good approximation to a linear system. And if you make those assumptions, the current difficulty is close to what you'd expect. While we know what the measurement of a track time would be for a much faster time, we don't know how an athlete would go about preparing to make that time. It isn't doing more of what they do now.
Now I'd like to see your analysis, John... or perhaps you'd just like to say that it's not possible and no one can do it.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2009 - 07:52am PT
|
Insomnia has its virtues -- I got a chance to read your reply, Ed. I don't have the data to perform these analyses, but let me suggest them, since you might. What would your graph look like if we used the British, French, Australian, the "V" bouldering ratings, or some other rating system, rather than the YDS? If it continues to be asymptotic, that would tend to confirm your position and undermine mine.
I'm not questioning the existence of limits; I'm really questioning whether the YDS can serve as their measure.
Thanks again, though, for your good work here.
John
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2009 - 01:00pm PT
|
Wow! So, like whether the Universe is open, closed, or flat?
Or is the question re-cast as what constitutes optimal training?
Gymnastics is my own prefered reference point. If climbers trained intensively from an early age with excellent coaching, then what?
Too many conjectures needed. Soon genetic testing may allow "optimal training" to be tailored to the individual. Many unknowns will probably remain, though.
Climbing just doesn't lend itself to analysis of high-end performance. Too many variables.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2009 - 01:38pm PT
|
In the recent past i have heard the numbers 5.14 and 5.15 bandied about. A point at (5.14,2008) falls above both the yellow and red curves. Have we got a cosmological acceleration here also? Perception versus reality?
In my middle thirties it was a constant battle to avoid tendonitus. The day after I decided, "OK. That's enough" I felt immensely free. I could have tendonitus now! Felt good.
|
|
drc
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2009 - 07:04pm PT
|
bump for hyperintellectual analysis
|
|
aldude
climber
Monument Manor
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2009 - 11:13pm PT
|
The X factor here is genetic engineering as well as theoretical advancement in mind control/utilization ie. telepathy,levitation and matter transformation. Will we evolve and mutate at a set rate or experience a quantum leap in the near future ???
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 27, 2009 - 11:51pm PT
|
ugh, the thread got spammed... oh well, maybe I'll take it down...
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2009 - 12:38am PT
|
No need to worry. I expect the local computer wizards can think of some suitable retaliation. In addition to ratting her out to CMac and getting her current address banned, that is.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2009 - 01:21am PT
|
I think you have to consider the "Yosemite Granite Sandbag Factor"
For example, the free Nose was rated 13b ma (My ass) and nobody could repeat it for years, despite the high prestige for anyone who could. 5.14+ climbers failed.
It finally gets a repeat and is upgraded to 14a, but is still hardly repeated?
Any repeats on Yosemite's hardest single pitch (is it Magic Line?)
So who says it's really only 14b if the hardest pitch in one of the worlds most famous areas never even gets attempted since it's so hard?
It's just a bunch of habitual sandbaggers and the sand is so thick that the sandbagging is expected.
Also, who is to say if there is an equal distance of difficulty between the ratings? I think it's clear that it's not really a big stretch for even the worst gumby to go from 5.4 to 5.6. 5.7 to 5.9 is a bigger stretch but not too bad. 5.9 to 5.11 is a big jump but NOTHING like the run between 5.11 to 5.13. 5.13 to 5.15 is another ball game. Why think it's linear just cause numbers are used?
Peace
Karl
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2009 - 12:47pm PT
|
I don't think sand bagging is always intentional. To me it sometimes comes across as an act of humility. I.e. I couldn't be the first person to climb 5.12, therefore I rate this route as 5.11, and so forth. And of course that completely throws off the scale to figure out exactly when limits got pushed.
I have no doubt limits will continue to rise, both from advances in training and techniques, as well as technology.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 03:18am PT
|
A Yosemite 5.17C? I bet that it will not happen within any forseeable future.
I would much prefer to see an objective measure of difficulty based on the number of onsights a climb has seen.
A slightly different look at questions that have been asked, from a discussion in May 2008 on Squamishclimbing.com
While I'm at it though, I wonder where you get the idea that the interval between grades should be the same. In the early early days I was told that the scale was exponential: roughly, 5.6 should be twice as hard as 5.4, 5.8 should be twice as hard as 5.6, etc. This is the way perception usually works, when they sit down people and ask them to make judgements about increase in light intensity or sound level.
At the time they told me that I thought I understood what was meant by 'twice as hard' because I had an intuitive notion of it. Lifting 200 lbs should be twice as hard as 100 lbs. Climbing was more complicated, of course, but I didn't see anything wrong with the idea going from 5.2 to 5.10.
I was also told that 5.10 was the hardest climb anyone could do and you can see how well that idea has stood up.
Much later I figured things out for myself, sort of. At school I studied physiology and one of my professors once said, "I don't get excited unless there is a factor of 10 involved." That put things in better perspective. When it comes to sports there isn't anyone who can run 10 times as fast or lift 10 times as much as a fit average person. In fact, in sports where measurement is simple, like a time or a weight, it is hard to find more than a factor of 2 separating a dedicated amateur from the world's best.
If climbing is at all like other sports, then in some sense the hardest climbs may only be twice as hard as a climb of average difficulty, say 5.10a
So where do we get all the spread between 5.10a and 5.15x? From the ability people have to detect differences, small but significant differences.
Which is my small and only point.
Whether we call those differences 11c/11d, 23/24, 7a/7b, E6/E7 is a geographical lottery and whether you agree with other people on them is a genetic lottery (they aren't usually assigned by people well over 6' or under 5').
Nevertheless they exist.
*
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 04:39am PT
|
The ratings won't be just 5.15, 5.16, etc.
The ratings war will be fought at the Grade VI level.
The onsight free ascent of El Cap is only days away.
As an old man, I can only hope that my hands can still place C1 gear in any El Cap cracks I choose to go up.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 04:52pm PT
|
The ratings won't be just 5.15, 5.16, etc.
The ratings war will be fought at the Grade VI level.
An apt observation.
As part of my own thinking on the overly simple 'factor of 2' separting the elite from the hardworking amateur, I considered the marathon. Plenty of my friends could run a marathon in less than twice the world record, but if I and 25 of the fastest people I know ran mile relays, a world class marathoner would still beat us running the full 26 miles by themself.
I'm guessing a Yosemite 5.17 might arrive before someone with a full-time conventional job, and wife and kids, onsights El Cap.
Howwwwever...maybe that is just mental baggage. Kids just don't seem to realize what they can't do.
|
|
pip the dog
Mountain climber
planet dogboy
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 07:26pm PT
|
BITD, a grade guess seemed to my small mind just a way of telling your pals what to expect. ok, sandbags were a different kind of humor -- but rarely if ever done at the true extremes. sure, the best were competitive and pushing it. yet grades were still a form of _communication_
these daze, it seems something different. last summer i did a 25' teeny finger crack that was definitely 5.17 -- or so said i as none of my pals could tag it just then. which makes me the best climber in the world, no? yeah, right...
i miss grades as _communication_ -- not intimidation, or self-promotiation.
^,,^
[easy on the math, dudes. all that nonlinear stuff gives me _such_ a headache]
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 08:00pm PT
|
Man, its hard to agree that the elite are remotely close, even by a factor of two, to the weekend warriors or mortal dedicated guys like me.
I mean, there is such a huge difference between climbing the Nose in a week (or failing at it) for guys who have worked and worked even to get that far, and doing it in a day, or mostly free.
How much greater is it to free the Nose completely, or climb it in 2 1/2 hours?! and that's only taking us to the low 5.14 level to free the Nose.
Climbing is insane!
Peace
Karl
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 09:42pm PT
|
Nobody will ever onsight that thing, it is such a monster, the first time you get under it, wow, my neck is still sore.
plus, the route finding, good luck.
i think the shoes made the ratings jump by a quantum leap, then no new equipment for the body came along, so only talent could raise the bar.
i tried going up some sandstone in my sneakers, and i could not even get started on a route that i can almost walk up with the shoes.
i am working on these gloves with many tiny barbless fish hooks in them.
has anybody tried this yet?
could be dangerous.
|
|
Broken
climber
Texas
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 10:13pm PT
|
Karl spoke about the possibility that the difference between the grades is not necessarily constant.
I've heard others argue the same; I think I recall reading a Randy Leavitt quote that said that the difference between 14b and 14c was ridiculous.
I think that this is a mistake brought on by the fact that the higher in the grading scale you get, the greater number of people there are who are reaching their limits.
A group of climbers who had to struggle for years to advance from 13c to 14a (and then couldn't reach 14b) would probably argue that the grades get harder to move through there.
Yet, if this is the case, why do we see relatively constant gaps between people's onsight limits and their redpoint limits? i.e. most folks are 3-5 letter grades apart, whether that is 11b/12b or 14a/15a. If the gap between grades grew as one advanced into the higher grades, then we would expect to see the gap between OS and RP to shrink. Since we don't see that, I'll venture to say that the steps between grades are at least relatively constant.
|
|
Broken
climber
Texas
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 10:51pm PT
|
Curt, there are some very hard modern boulder problems that aren't endurance affairs. However, there might be something to your argument that the hardest single move hasn't advanced much. Of course, shorter problems might suffer even more from the subjective nature of grading.
Bernd Zangerl has several very short problems (3-4 moves) that are in the V14-V15 range. I'd guess they have a move in the V12-V13 range. In this interview (http://www.climbandmore.com/climbing,328,0,1,interviews.html); Zangerl discusses "some" V13's that he knows of with "two or three moves."
The problem Jade in Colorado is referred to as having a "V13 move", which would make it a contender, I believe, for hardest single move.
How hard was Holloway's hardest single move? Tough to say. His problem finally repeated (though not exactly as he did it?) was given hard V12. I don't know what the hardest single move on it was... but I would guess at least V11. (http://www.climbing.com/news/hotflashes/triceasnice/);
If this is true, it means that the hardest single move has, theoretically, only advanced from V11ish to V13ish in 30 years.
So maybe not much, but enough to lead me to believe that there has been SOME "advancement".
And Ed, I like your attempt at projecting into the future. Regrettably, I don't have the skills to provide my own hard evidence based projection.
However, I do have two minor quibbles with your work:
1. I think there is a good comparison to be had in baseball, but I don't think it lies in career totals dependent on how one performs against other players (which varies based on rules of the time - higher mound, bigger parks, etc. Also, improvement of hitters and pitchers could cancel each other out). More topical for our discussion, I think:
Despite modern knowledge/training, the very hardest throwers do not appear to throw harder than they did 70 years ago - Bob Feller's fastball was measured with a motorcycle and stop action photos at 101-103mph. No one has thrown significantly harder (though quite a few have thrown in that range). Similarly, no one has hit a baseball significantly further than Mickey Mantle did (565 feet, I think) 50 years ago.
That being said, the average fastball is faster, just as the average hitter has more power. So the average (MLB average, that is) appears to have greatly benefitted from training, knowledge of mechanics, etc. But the top end hasn't changed much. That suggests, to me, that there are anatomical limits to throwing / hitting a baseball that we've pretty much already reached.
How close are we to that with finger strength in climbing?
2) Related to the previous point... Since we are searching for the human limit, I think we need to expand beyond Yosemite. For outliers like Gill and Holloway were doing extremely hard moves long ago (and who knows what Gill could have done if he'd had modern shoes and the motivation to try one problem 100 times). If you focus on the very hardest climbing done by anyone, anywhere, I think the curve would be much more conservative (after all, hard 5.11 was done in Dresden in the early 1900s, I believe?). And it seems as though Fred Rouhling might have really climbed 5.15 in 1995.
Of course, that would be more difficult data to compile...
Alternatively, I am curious what it would look like if we only included onsights (which levels the playing field a little bit across era's).
Anyway, I think we are closer to the limit than some think.
However, as Stannard suggests, grades will almost certainly continue to go up... Aside from positive personal feedback, there is a lot of money to be made in "progression", after all.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2009 - 11:16pm PT
|
Some fine contributions by Broken.
What has really bumped up the standards in climbing since the 60s has been changes in techniques, training and to some degree, equipment.
Guys like Harding and Robbins didn't train like fiends (Harding drank like one though)
The advent of sport climbing, hangdogging, rehearsing, and such, combined with modern techniques for training has made much, much more possible.
Combine that with the very real element of expanded vision and you have a sport where what was unimaginable 40 years ago happens all the time today. I think it's really true that you have to wrap your mind around a possibility to unlock future accomplishments.
Now that we have, by hard work, vision, and loose morals, unlocked dormant possibilities in hard climbing, big leaps in difficulty will be accomplished by mutant Mozart talents on some gifted person, particularly if they have the right angst and get dumped by the wrong woman.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Broken
climber
Texas
|
|
bump for climbing related thread...
|
|
TYeary
climber
|
|
Ed,
Has the increment of difficulty decreased along with the decrease in pace toward higher ratings? Just a thought, but I wonder how the difference between 5.8 and 5.9 compares with the difference between, say 5.13d and 5.14a? If the increment of difficulty decreases between ratings as the ratings get more difficult, then I would exspect the pace to reach climbs of higher and high degrees of difficulty to slow down as well.
Sorry if this seems a bit messy. Does this make sence?
Tony
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
The problem with rating climbs is the rating system is totally subjective. Every climb is unique. You can't break it down into, well the holds are so many milimeters wide, the holds are so far apart and the wall angles back at so many degrees. It comes down to folks figuring, well this climb seems about as hard as those other climbs, so it gets the same rating. When a route seems harder than anything else ever climbed, the ratings get bumped up.
Which isn't to say the rating system has no merrit, but it's an attempt to attach a numerical rating to something that doesn't have any formulas to come up with the number.
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
bump
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
The problem with rating climbs is the rating system is totally subjective.
Not totally.
Climbs can be ranked (ordered from easiest to hardest) objectively.
Take any large climbing competition. After the comp you should be able to rank the problems or routes from easiest to hardest according to which saw the most onsights to which saw the least.
Of course some routes may be easier for short or tall or other ways that individuals vary, but given enough people climbs can still be rated in an objective way, a way that depends only on whether you fall or not.
Whether we should care about that I'd rather not say.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
I wasn't sure what exactly was being plotted in Ed's graph (average FA-FFA rating or max rating?), so I made my own, using his data generously shared:
As others have noted, the YDS rating system is really ordinal instead of cardinal, so the linear scaling is arbitrary.
If anything, I'd say the graph indicates a relative lack of 5.12d climbs (an unpopular rating?).
I think you can see how climbs 5.10d-5.11 were limited to just 5 prior to 1971 (Perhaps, Twilight Zone, Slack Center, Serenity Crack, Swan Slab Aid Route), when EBs and the Stonemasters showed up.
Fires (sticky rubber) and Friends and helped make the jump to 5.12c and 5.13, but I'm not sure if the graph shows this (given the weird gap at 5.12d).
Trying to make a projection into the future seems difficult, based on the upper envelope of earliest climbs at each graph.
For one thing, any trend will be sensitive to ratings assigned to those climbs. Given that the Nose has been rated between 5.13c and 5.14b, and only a few people have freed it, the trend will be pretty noisy.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2009 - 02:05am PT
|
I think I wrote out my methodology in a previous thread, basically I looked at the time dependence of route production at each grade and judged the grade "established" when roughly 10% or 20% of all the routes at that grade were completed... But your plot also shows the effect, that is, around the late 70's the exponential increase in grades with time rolls off... the increases in grade are much less frequent since then.
The shape could be anything, but if you hypothesize that the increase is limited by the supply of climbers capable of climbing very hard, then you would use a logistics curve, and the asymptote would be around 5.17d, the date would be something like 2040.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
Thanks for explaining, Ed. I like that concept of "when the grade is well established." I'll try something like that - maybe the year when there are at least 5 climbs at that grade or higher.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Has anyone tried plotting difficulty against time for more mature climbing areas, such as Great Britain or Dresden? Oliver Perry-Smith was doing climbs in the 5.9 range in Dresden in the early 1900's. British climbing had that quaint idea that the leader must not fall, so its limits may have changed differently as attitudes toward protection changed.
If someone could point me toward sources for measuring difficulty of climbs in those areas, and a relatively new one with a different rating system, such as Australia, I'd be happy to start compiling the data and crunching the numbers (that is when I can find the time to stop doing that for money).
John
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
"...Curt, there are some very hard modern boulder problems that aren't endurance affairs. However, there might be something to your argument that the hardest single move hasn't advanced much. Of course, shorter problems might suffer even more from the subjective nature of grading.
Bernd Zangerl has several very short problems (3-4 moves) that are in the V14-V15 range. I'd guess they have a move in the V12-V13 range. In this interview (http://www.climbandmore.com/climbing,328,0,1,interviews.html); Zangerl discusses "some" V13's that he knows of with "two or three moves."
The problem Jade in Colorado is referred to as having a "V13 move", which would make it a contender, I believe, for hardest single move.
How hard was Holloway's hardest single move? Tough to say. His problem finally repeated (though not exactly as he did it?) was given hard V12. I don't know what the hardest single move on it was... but I would guess at least V11. (http://www.climbing.com/news/hotflashes/triceasnice/);
If this is true, it means that the hardest single move has, theoretically, only advanced from V11ish to V13ish in 30 years.
So maybe not much, but enough to lead me to believe that there has been SOME "advancement"...."
Could be, but I suspect if "AHR" or "Meathook" were repeated as Holloway originally did them, their ratings would be higher. By Holloway's own admission, "Slapshot" was his hardest problem--and it will likely never see a repeat. Of course (also by Holloway's own admission) this is the only one of his "Big Three" problems that was height dependent.
I'm certainly willing to agree that modern training methods have allowed more boulderers to pull single moves that are perhaps as hard as those done by Holloway back in the day, but I still doubt that many individual moves ever done on rock are truly harder.
Curt
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
Here's a modified graph showing my definition of the year at which each grade was first established:
My way to explain the pattern of growth in established ratings is in terms of shoe technology, people, guidebooks, and training methods, but these might be driven by the number of active climbers as Ed suggested with his logistic growth curve. Maybe best would be to look at the climbs and people involved as each grade was established, but I'll try for a plainer story for now.
Here's my rather anectdotal explanation for periods when standards rose rapidly (2 years or less between grade increases):
 1962-64 (5.10a-10c) - Kronhofers, crome-moly pitons, Frank Sacherer, 1964 Roper guidebook, and the group synergy in Camp 4 as El Cap was tamed in the "golden age".
1971-76 (5.11a-12b) - EBs, the Stonemasters, first topo guidebooks (1974 Nicol, 1976 Meyers).
1986-88 (5.12d-13b) - establishment of sport climbing training, 1987 Meyers-Reid guidebook.
With recent grade increases, I don't see a levelling off, but a steady slow increase, perhaps due to the current group of sponsored full-time climbers.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 3, 2009 - 10:20am PT
|
Thanks Clint... how the curve is interpreted, of course, is the issue. And my guess is that it's all good fun to think of how to interpret it.
Eric Horst in his book How to Climb 5.12 says that most people could climb at 5.12 if they applied standard training techniques. It is interesting that the inflection point on your plot (and mine) is around 5.12, which may be a hint that the "limits" model of climbing difficulty is operant.
But I won't press my case any more. Time will tell. When we have a discussion of limits here I always get the feeling that my point of view is limiting and negative, but I actually see it in the opposite, that by knowing the limitations it better prepares us to confront it.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
First, we can't simply assume that the limits to free climbing in Yosemite are the same as the limits to free climbing. There are way too many variables, and changes in preferred types of climb are one of the things we've seen correlated with periodic leaps in technical difficulty.
Second, I find it highly doubtful that the physical or mental challenges of training are closely correlated-- if they correlate at all --with physical limits to human athletic performance in climbing or any other sport I can think of. Martial athletes in antiquity trained at least as many hours (in environments far more "competitive," hehe), as modern athletes, yet we've seen substantial improvements in measurable performance.
Third, I can't imagine that we will quantify "climbing" as easily as we may certain track and field events, especially sprinting and long jump.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
"'...Curt, there are some very hard modern boulder problems that aren't endurance affairs. . . .How hard was Holloway's hardest single move? . . . I would guess at least V11.
If this is true, it means that the hardest single move has, theoretically, only advanced from V11ish to V13ish in 30 years.'
Could be, but I suspect if "AHR" or "Meathook" were repeated as Holloway originally did them, their ratings would be higher. By Holloway's own admission, "Slapshot" was his hardest problem--and it will likely never see a repeat. Of course (also by Holloway's own admission) this is the only one of his "Big Three" problems that was height dependent.
I'm certainly willing to agree that modern training methods have allowed more boulderers to pull single moves that are perhaps as hard as those done by Holloway back in the day, but I still doubt that many individual moves ever done on rock are truly harder."
Maybe, but I'm also willing to suggest that we don't know because we don't really have a proper metric for measuring such things. The real problem with individual moves (and we don't even have a single, universally accepted definition for what constitutes a "move") is that they are going to be so specific for body types. And climbing-- even bouldering--is still at a stage in which very different body types are performing at comparable levels.
You don't see that in Olympic sports. We haven't even reached the point at which climbing is so advanced that it demands a specific body type. (We may be getting there for comp plastic climbing, but that could also be an artifact of route setting.)
We've only had real climbing gyms for what, 25 years? And systematic training and coaching for youth age groups for what, 15? 20 at the outside? And mostly at fairly amateurish levels in comparison with the capital and expertise dumped into, say, football or baseball.
I don't believe that we can use data from primarily amateur, hobbyist epochs as a data set for projecting physical limits to a future in which climbing may (or may not be) radically professionalized.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
On the question of professionalism.
In order to get the flows of money into an activity adequate to support professionalism you have to have leverage, i.e. spectators. Spectators can come for a number of reasons.
1. Motion. Beginning with the days we developed the high sensitivity to motion needed for finding meat, we have been attracted to motion. There is a lot of motion in doing an off width but not of the kind recognized as such by persons who have not themselves been so engaged. Even speed climbing is motion challenged.
2. Desire to see an event, like someone getting hurt or a big prize being won. Stock car racing gives spectators all three. Professional golf barely survives these tests. Winning a big prize is an event, barely. And you do get to watch the flag at the hole whip if there is a breeze. Pretty subdued.
3. To watch special people. Big league sports now travel on the fact the people on the field are being paid one hundred million dollars. The greed impulse has been put into gear.
I suppose climbing could get over these hurdles if we would get climbers paid a few million to perform as free soloists on an American Free Soloist TV show. But it would be very weak unless there were several deaths a year. Unroped races to the top would be the ticket.
The climbers would have to earn their pay. And reverting to old Roman times, not everyone would be allowed to get to the top.
Each of us has to ask whether we would pay $200 a seat to see such an event.
I tend to doubt it.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Interested in what folks think about this difference between the difficulty of a single move or two moves (cause moving from one move to another is another story) versus endurance.
Different comparisons to different sports are incomplete in many ways. Maybe there should be a 10 meter dash in track to measure pure reaction and get up and go power.
It's effortless to hold your breath for 10 seconds but murder to do so for 3 minutes.
Still, it amazes me sometimes when I touch a hold that some mutant can crank on and not understand how that's even possible
PEace
Karl
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Yeah, I don't think I can wait 'til 2040.
Can someone please do a plot of grip strength divided by body weight versus hardest route for climbers, then get the World Record out of Guinness and estimate what that guy or girl could climb (if they were a climber, that is)?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
JStan: "In order to get the flows of money into an activity adequate to support professionalism you have to have leverage, i.e. spectators."
Certainly that's the case in the US, and that means TV. But climbing in western Europe is getting pretty close to being professionalized the way that many more mainline sports are.
In northern Italy, southern Austria, Messner is not just a celebrity-- he may well be the single best-known public figure. That's an exception, obviously, but there's been a tremendous shift in the last few years in corporate investment in climbing, i.e., it's not just Sportiva or Mammut anymore--
|
|
Brian Kimball
Sport climber
Westminster, CO.
|
|
There are 5.15 pitches that go free all over the Valley. The problem is this is not limestone so it is hard to have a pitch that is steep and sustained like most of the worlds hardest pitches. The cruxes on routes like La Rambla and Realization (both arguably 5.15a) come high on the route and are in the V11/V12 range and come at points in the climb that are already considered to be 5.14b/c or harder.
The reason why most 5.15s established today are of this nature is simply because it is easier to link 5.14c into a V12 boulder problem 100' up than it is to do a 5.11a thin hands crack to a five move V15 boulder problem (lower percentage). This would be around 5.14d/5.15a but again most of the guys out there climbing 5.15a these days are not bouldering any harder than V12 or V13 they are just stacking multiple V12s on top of one another and their condition is power endurance.
Then the guys like Daniel Woods that are out there putting up V15 blocks, do not have much interest in roping up to climb a 5.11 into a V15 just so he can say he put up the Yosemite's first 5.15. Bouldering with friends is much more fun...
To find something of power endurance style like Meltdown 5.14c (overhanging/pumpy with several hard cruxes in a row but no moves harder than say V12) this is difficult to find in Yosemite because the limited steep rock has a lack of features and holds.
Other than Meltdown the most difficult boulder problem on a free route or pitch would probably be the said V11 on the Dihedral Walls 5.14a crux pitch.
I would think it will be a long time before anyone gets around to establishing a pitch any harder than these and could be even 10+ years before you see 5.14d or 5.15a in the Valley. If anyone was going to do this it would have to be TC and it would probably be some 5.14b or 5.14c pitch way up on the North America Wall (maybe several in a row/who knows).
As far as V14 and V15 I think you will see problems of this difficulty go up all over in Yosemite with in the next year or two, will see...
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
BK: "[T]his is not limestone . . .."
Exactly. Fewer possible lines, at least in the style of climbing that currently predominates.
As compression and other new styles of moves become more popular in top-end bouldering (i.e., as it starts to look less and less like a 1980s or 1990s style woody), it's also possible to imagine more lines opening up in the valley.
Although I can't imagine a future in which the density of those opportunities would resemble that at a limestone or sandstone crag that is more regularly featured.
|
|
Brian Kimball
Sport climber
Westminster, CO.
|
|
As far as a true on-site of El Cap. well it would have to be of Freerider because Golden Gate and everything else is certainly much harder. Now with the Huber boulder pitch being out of commission and that technical looking grassy smear-fest of a Teflon Corner being the length of passage to the easiest way up the Cap...well I just do not see it all going down as soon as people might think. Probably a better chance of V15 in the Valley than of anyone pulling off this on-site. It gets my vote for hardest 5.12+ in the world!
I went for a true on-site attempt in May of 07' and got BITCH SLAPPED HARD at about 11pm on the Freeblast slabs. That's what I get for thinking I could on-site those tricky bastards in the dark (serves me right). If the slabs don't spit someone off then they are for sure going to get jacked by the 11c slab move from hell off of Heart Ledge.
If they make it though that then comes another 12a slab crux to gain the 11c down climb on Hollow Flake. Then comes the MONSTER OW...only a few people have ever on-sited to this point and then pulled off this pitch, keeping in mind you must be on lead the whole time.
OK-OK, so a few guys attempting the first on-site free ascent of the big stone and they make it this far it is possible but the chances of them pulling off the Teflon Corner are pretty slim (that's if is even clean and dry). Remember Yugi fell here, he even had Yosemite experience and 5.14d under his belt. Lets say they send "YEAAHHH MAANNN, I am home free biotch" NOT!!! You better hope it is October because for me the sopping wet Sewer Pitch was the bloody crux in May, for sure!!!
Better get a good nights sleep on the Block because now the route actually gets HARD. That 200' 12d corner is no joke really and neither is the sandbagged, scary as hell 12a traverse but that's ok the next 150' overhanging 5.11d pitch will pump you out just enough for the overhanging 5.11d Scotty Burke OW, grease-fest, horror-show...seriously how many people just rope up and fire that thing first go?
I would really like to see it go down, how awesome would this be but man really it could be 10 years maybe more-I hope I am wrong.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Interesting and detailed thoughts Brian. Thanks.
This is a good thread.
Still, nobody can predict when acts of genius might arise (unless they run rampant with some genius on a rampage)
Peace
Karl
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
yeah, nice to hear a tr. the mental pressure for an onsite must be pretty intense. window of health, fitness, weather, money, partner, etc.
not to mention that if you're a yos local it means saving the thing for however long it takes to work up to it.
can anyone think of a comp in some other part of the world?
auer's sole of attreverso il pesce was his second time on the route, but it's pretty close in length, commitment and even angle.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 09:31am PT
|
Thanks Brian. You make climbing the Captain sound like sooooo much fun!
Leading the Hollow Flake was, at one time, a measure of skill since there was no way to nail it. Quaint, isn’t it?
For the first time, I am beginning to understand the way 'V' ratings--thanks Russ--and YDS ratings can be combined to create more meaningful descriptions of the difficulties. (I am sure that this is obvious to most everyone else.)
What are the 'v' ratings on for the Nose?
|
|
cleo
Social climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 12:39pm PT
|
I think it is time for some physicists to study this problem. How much force is required to stick to the rock, how much friction exists... how much is physically possible for humans. Quantify the surface roughness of various climbs. Start with Yosemite granite, draw up different models (cracks, face, etc.), start by testing human-capable climbs, and draw up an index. Correlate that to YDS, then take it forward to the limits of the human body, to the 1/10,000,000,000 outlier :).
Ed, aren't you a physicist?
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2009 - 02:32pm PT
|
One in 10 billion? That's a small number. In practical terms that would define the capabilities of only 10 or so of all fo the people who have ever been alive. And that assumes that they climbed.
"A Black Swan" problem.
Sort of takes the fun out of forecasting repeats. "The newest test piece is expected to be repeated within the next 758,000 years. Some question if the sit start can be maintained for such an extended period of time."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2009 - 02:52pm PT
|
I am a physicist. The "bottoms up" approach may not be the correct way to look at this problem, though it does bound the upper end. The problem with this sort of analysis would be to associate the physical boundaries to the difficulty grades.
I actually think the limitations come from the ability to train. Training is essential to pushing athletic limits, and the capacity to train is limited. This ability is largely a genetic trait, though more complicated than a single "training gene." The point is that the variation in individuals is probably statistical.
As has been mentioned above (I think James' post was the first) better training regimes could be available. John Bachar probably is a representative of hard training regimes of the past, and he, and others, achieved the huge jump in grade difficulty in the 70s. Ron Kauk has legendary strength and injury resistance, I don't know about Lynn Hill, but she is still climbing hard late into her life.
But even given the time and motivation to train, the body ultimately limits the amount of training that can be tolerated.
Training for climbing is a lot better now than earlier in the sport, but it probably still is the single activity that could advance the climbing grades. Right now climbing does not attract the attention of other sports, such as baseball, football (both varieties), etc, where there is a large economic incentive for individuals to excel.
That is why the logistic curve may be a good model for the grade limits. The pool of climbers is limited, and it becomes more rare to find the climbers who could climb at the physical limits, thus the grade limitation.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 2, 2018 - 08:09pm PT
|
I'm posting the graph I had in this post
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=65106&msg=819235#msg819235
after a discussion around the campfire last week (yes a real campfire with real climbers who had done real climbs earlier that day, in Yosemite Valley).
what's the hardest Yosemite grade right now? (gee, I should know that... but some people keep things very quite). Magic Line has a 5.14b rating (1997 FFA). The graph would have had us at 5.16d by now.
This post has been up for 13 years already and the difficulties for routes has fallen far behind where I'd have expected (suggesting that the limit is lower than my estimate of 5.17d).
So if we put the hardest bouldering grades in how does that effect the graph? I don't have ready accesses to the bouldering guides (but I could probably do a little work, if someone hasn't already).
|
|
jeff constine
Trad climber
Ao Namao
|
|
Limestone routes of that grade are manufactured with drilled pockets.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 2, 2018 - 08:52pm PT
|
@ Ed Hartouni: What's the current reigning hardest Yose boulder problem?
I don't actually know, but I could try to find out.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
A route on small features, climbed by a woman, unrepeated by a man. I think it's a possibility.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
It may be that size matters after all.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
https://gripped.com/news/lonnie-kauks-second-ascent-magic-line-5-14b-yosemite/ (January 2017)
Regarding grade extrapolation - grades are inherently subjective and ordinal rather than cardinal, so I would not expect them to scale in a predictable way.
Grade progressions happen every once in awhile when a dominant climber or two declare that the hardest climb is a lot harder than prior climbs and needs a new upper grade.
Also, there are so few climbs at the higher grades that we don't have any "law of large numbers" (like we would get on an average), so that adds to the variance as well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There are no limits to the living entity except ignorance of its own conscious self.
Want to run faster just become a Cheetah in your next life.
Then you can run faster, and waste your time going nowhere again around the wheel ......
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
In a popular bouldering area it might make more sense to "grade" each problem by simply counting the number of climbers who are successful on it.
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Maybe someday "robo-climber" will be built. A human figure with hands and feet, but with greater lock off and pull up strength than a human. Then he can be programmed with algorithms to measure grades.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
We can each of us get some idea of how hard a climb is by trying to do it.
Trying to compare difficulty across climbers, I like John Gill's suggestion. Given enough climbers you just count the number of successes. For the truly hard climbs it will likely be reported when someone succeeds.
For lesser stuff the grapevine can work as long as there are enough climbers in the arena. After you get enough info then you can debate why some succeed and others don't. Or you can go ahead and just debate.
|
|
Pete_N
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
<In a popular bouldering area it might make more sense to "grade" each problem by simply counting the number of climbers who are successful on it.>
I like John's suggestion; it seems the best way yet to quantify the difficulty semi-objectively (emphasis on 'semi-').
In a similar vein, one might be able to compare the number of routes at each grade in successive guidebooks for an established area to model the progression of 'hard' climbing. I don't have the library of old guidebooks necessary, but I bet some of you do! What's the frequency distribution of 5.7-5.hardest in every Yosemite guide? Presumably, the median grade is going to shift right over the years, but rate at which it does so may have some predictive value.
It may be more interesting to compare grade frequency distributions among multiple climbing venues; this is probably more of a function of geomorphology though than local climbing ability.
I know there are a host of problems with the approach, but it's fun to consider.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Trad climber
Soulsbyville, California
|
|
Hasn't John Gill's original B1, B2, B3 bouldering grading system got to do with number of repeats, at least as far as B3 is concerned? B3 would be on ascent with no repeats? I seem to remember when B1s were rated as approximately V4, which would be 5.12a YDS (if you want to compare bouldering with free-climbing). Bet John could be a lot more precise.
|
|
Pete_N
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
have at it!
Yikes. Be careful what you ask for... I'll see what I can do. Thanks Ed. I think.
|
|
Digits
Trad climber
Ca
|
|
There’s a short 11a top rope route that never fails to make my day. The moves matter most and I could care less what the grade is....
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
As Ondra said - it's easy to find a hard climb, harder to find one you can climb.
Yosemite could be simplified by saying it's either an easy crack or a polished face. The crux of all the modern big wall free climbs is basically linking crack systems across featureless faces.
There's a video of Rodden working Meltdown. It looked totally miserable. Compare that to the many videos of - say - Realization - or any of its neighbors.
So you're among the best, where are you going to spend your time? For hard sport - probably not Yosemite. Nobody wants to crimp dimes all day long.
Also - trad is ground up, on sight, or at least close to it. Meltdown isn't a trad route - it's a sport route protected by trad gear.
|
|
Eric Beck
Sport climber
Bishop, California
|
|
Just a thought on the more limited topic of the feasibility of climbing grades. There are those who despair of this given all the variation in types of climbing...slabs , face, crack and sizes of climbers and their extremities. Some just find it hopelessly subjective.
I have always taken the opposite view, that given all the variables, it is remarkable the degree of consensus in our grading system. For data on this, visit Mountain Project. For any route there is a section 'opinions' where people are invited to give their own rating. It is remarkable how little variation there is.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Speaking of the chart of running records,
the world record for the mile and 1500m has not improved in 20 years.
Morocco’s Hicham El Guerrouj has held the world record for the mile of 3:43.13 since July 7, 1999
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvCsj7eJKKA
Hicham El Guerrouj 1500m Rome 14 July 1998 03:26.00
Sports with absolute measurements don't have the problems of relative and subjective ratings.
Even if there were a theoretical absolute upper limit to climbing, as that value is approached, the scale can still be divided into an infinite number of difficulty ratings.
|
|
Trashman
Trad climber
SLC
|
|
If only Worrall were around to see his demographic catching up to the free climbing level of young ladies, he’d be so proud.
First Tommy on The Nose, now this!
|
|
hailman
Trad climber
Ventura, CA
|
|
Unlike, say, a running race where it is physically impossible to run a distance in zero seconds,
the climbing scale is relative rather than absolute. Then the grades could keep going higher and higher, but the difficulty difference between higher grades would get smaller and smaller.
this is just like a logarithmic scale:
|
|
Kalimon
Social climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
The spirit is not bound by gravity.
Let us not forget.
|
|
PinkTaco
Mountain climber
Utah
|
|
This thread is a little like listening to the Senators in DC talk about the internet... I'm just sayin'.
|
|
Loyd
Big Wall climber
Roseburg, OR
|
|
I seem to remember when we were having the same discussion about how hard the climbs and the rating could go back in camp four in 1970. We were trying to define 5.10 and looking for 5.11. New gear and indoor gyms helped advance climbing then.
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
Is this a climbing thread or a what is mind/religion vs science thread?
Sure you gross materialists can use your little machines to try to quantify 5.16, but in the end yer just gonna have to bow down to how objectively awesome humans in general, and climbers in particular, are, for the superlative ways we rate the unique awesomeness our own experiences.
|
|
Oplopanax
Mountain climber
The Deep Woods
|
|
I watched that Ondra film in Reel Rock 13 last night.
Apparently the limit of free climbing is how well you can lie on your back and grunt and squirm while visualizing.
Video was kinda like watching a dude masturbate. Embarrassing.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 9, 2018 - 06:39pm PT
|
This thread is a little like listening to the Senators in DC talk about the internet... I'm just sayin'.
that's your opinion of course, whoever you are.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
Better get a good nights sleep on the Block because now the route actually gets HARD. That 200' 12d corner is no joke really and neither is the sandbagged, scary as hell 12a traverse but that's ok the next 150' overhanging 5.11d pitch will pump you out just enough for the overhanging 5.11d Scotty Burke OW, grease-fest, horror-show...seriously how many people just rope up and fire that thing first go?
I would really like to see it go down, how awesome would this be but man really it could be 10 years maybe more-I hope I am wrong.
I was just reading somewhere that Ondra came close to onsighting Freerider just before his Dawn Wall climb. He bonked on the headwall. What I read must be on the Ondra thread. I'll find the post when I have more time.
EDIT... From the Ondra is Coming thread: Adam Ondra:
"Salathe was a dream of mine for a long time. A dream of just being up there, feeling the air and exposure of the "headwall" (upper part of Salathe which is the crux), putting my hands into perfect cracks... And to onsight it. Some dreams came true yesterday, but the ultimate - the onsight is not fulfilled. And the nature of onsight is that it will never be fulfilled any more. It is only one try, lots of pressure in case of such a legendary route like Salathe in Yosemite on El Capitan.
Yesterday we started with amazing partner @nicofavresse at 00:01 AM, 7 AM we were up at the "Boulderproblem", 8:30 AM at the Block, still onsighting all. At 1:30 PM we continued through Enduro and the roof and I failed to onsight Headwall pitch 1 in the upper part, on my second go I fell right at the anchor. No more energy to give another try."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 16, 2018 - 12:50pm PT
|
Chris Sharma is training (he never trained)... how far do you think he'll push the grades?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
| Messages 1 - 124 of total 124 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!